Re: strict_prototypes_lang_c

[Gavin Romig-Koch <gavin at cygnus dot com>]

Jeffrey A Law writes:
 > 
 >   In message <199812150802.AAA09238@adsl-206-170-148-33.dsl.pacbell.net>you
 >   > write:
 >   >     Jeffrey> -trigraphs option is used.  As long as those are disabled
 >   >     Jeffrey> by default, then we do not have a strict superset of
 >   >     Jeffrey> ANSI/ISO.
 >   > 
 >   > And that, in my opinion, is a bug.
 > Personally, I agree.

>From this thread it sounded like the primary reason for turning
on -trigraphs is to make "what's on by default" be a superset of
ANSI/ISO because that would make the options simpler.  If I 
understood this correctly, I think it's a mistake.

I think it's a mistake to decide to define "what's on by default
in gcc" as a superset of ANSI/ISO features.  In the long run
gcc needs the flexibility to decide that certain ANSI/ISO features
should not be on by default.  We need options that allow this,
and make this clear to our users.

I'm not opposed to turning on -trigraphs by default.  Like Jeff
said, if the consensus is to have them on, then by all means.  But
in the mean time, lets use trigraphs as an example to help us
improve and/or clarify our option flags.

                                           -gavin...





                                          -gavin...